On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:09:42 -0700 Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea has been discussed numerous times on the HACKERS list, and is
a
(pretty much) closed issue. While Oracle and SQL Server use their own
filesystems, PostgreSQL will not because:
...
2) The filesystem projects out there are (mostly) well-staffed and are
constantly advancing using specialized technology and theory. There's
no way
that the PostgreSQL team can do a better job in our spare time.
i consider this a fair answer, but i have a slightly different question to
ask, inspired by my discussions with a good friend who is a top notch
Informix DBA.
there are advantages to being able to split the database across a slew of
disk drives. if we accept the notion of using the native OS filesystem on
each, it would seem that being able to direct various tables and indices to
specific drives might be a valuble capability. i know that i could go into
/var/lib/pgsql/data/base and fan the contents out, but this is unweildy and
impractical. has any consideration been given to providing a way to manage
such a deployment?
or is it the judgement of the hackers community that a monsterous raid-10
array offers comparable performance?
i forget how large the data store on my friend's current project is, but
i'll check. knowing the size and transaction rate he's dealing with might
put a finer point on this discussion.
richard
--
Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

there are advantages to being able to split the database across a slew of
disk drives. if we accept the notion of using the native OS filesystem on
each, it would seem that being able to direct various tables and indices
to
specific drives might be a valuble capability. i know that i could go into
/var/lib/pgsql/data/base and fan the contents out, but this is unweildy
and
impractical. has any consideration been given to providing a way to manage
such a deployment?
We've got a little bunch of us tinkering with a tablespace implementation.
However, it's been staller for a while now.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Greg,
FWIW, Informix can be run using a cooked (Unix) file for storing data or
it uses raw disk space and bypasses the ordinary (high level) UNIX
controllers and does its own reads/writes. About 10 times faster and safer.
Of course, itmay have taken a lot of programmer time to make that solid.
But the performance gains are significant.
Yes, but it's still slower than PostgreSQL on medium-end hardware. ;-)
This idea has been discussed numerous times on the HACKERS list, and is a
(pretty much) closed issue. While Oracle and SQL Server use their own
filesystems, PostgreSQL will not because:
1) It would interfere with our cross-platform compatibility. PostgreSQL runs
on something like 20 OSes.
2) The filesystem projects out there are (mostly) well-staffed and are
constantly advancing using specialized technology and theory. There's no way
that the PostgreSQL team can do a better job in our spare time.
3) Development of our own filesystem would then require PostgreSQL to create
and maintain a whole hardware compatibility library, and troubleshoot
problems on exotic hardware and wierd RAID configurations.
4) A database FS also often causes side-effect problems; for example, one
cannot move or copy a SQL Server partition without destroying it.
Of course, that could all change if some corp with deep pockets steps in an
decides to create a postgresFS and funds and staffs the effort 100%. But
it's unlikely to be a priority for the existing development team any time in
the forseeable future.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:48:18 +0800 Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've got a little bunch of us tinkering with a tablespace
implementation.
However, it's been staller for a while now.
interesting. i'm involved in the very early stages of a startup that is
likely to do a prototype using Java and PostgreSQL.
tablespace and replication are issues that would weigh heavily in a
decision to stick with PostgreSQL after the prototype.
richard
--
Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

I think Gavin Sherry is working on this. I am CC'ing him.
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
there are advantages to being able to split the database across a slew of
disk drives. if we accept the notion of using the native OS filesystem on
each, it would seem that being able to direct various tables and indices
to
specific drives might be a valuble capability. i know that i could go into
/var/lib/pgsql/data/base and fan the contents out, but this is unweildy
and
impractical. has any consideration been given to providing a way to manage
such a deployment?
We've got a little bunch of us tinkering with a tablespace implementation.
However, it's been staller for a while now.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Gavin Sherry is working on this. I am CC'ing him.
---
Yes I am working on this. I am about 50% of the way through the patch but
have been held up with other work. For those who are interested, it
basically allow:
1) creation of different 'storage' locations. Tables and indexes can be
created in different storage locations. Storage locations can also be
assigned to schemas and databases. Tables and indexes will default to the
schema storage location if STORAGE 'store name' is not provided to CREATE
This will cascade to the default database storage location if
the schema was not created with STORAGE 'store name'.
2) the patch will allow different storage locations to have different
rand_cost parameters passed to the planner.
3) the patch *will not* address issues concerning quotas, resource
management, WAL/clog, temp or sort spaces.
Will keep everyone posted if/when I finish.
Thanks,
Gavin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])